The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while addressing a challenge to the allotment of liquor vends under the Chandigarh Excise Policy 2025-2026, directed the petitioner to amend their plea and challenge the constitutional validity of the policy. The Court observed that the policy aimed at preventing monopoly in liquor licensing and emphasized that liquor is not an essential commodity, thereby indicating that its supply could be regulated without urgency.
The matter arose from a plea contesting the allocation of liquor vends under Clause 14 of the Chandigarh Excise Policy 2025-2026, which limits the allotment of more than ten liquor licenses to a single individual or entity to prevent monopolization. The petitioner alleged that a particular family and their associates secured 87 out of 97 vend in a recent bid, thereby monopolizing the liquor business in Chandigarh.
The High Court bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri took cognizance of the allegations and questioned the petitioner on the constitutional validity of the policy, instructing them to revise their plea accordingly. The Court remarked that the bidding process must remain open to broader participation to ensure fairness and transparency.
The petitioner, Vault Liquor Private Limited, contended that the excise policy explicitly prohibits the issuance of more than ten licenses to a single entity, including those with overlapping partners, directors, or associates, to prevent cartelization. The petitioner further submitted that despite this restriction, a single family and its affiliates managed to secure the majority of the liquor vendors.
It was argued that the entire bidding process had been rigged, evidenced by the absence of cross-bidding among 12 cartel members, resulting in financial losses to the state exchequer. The petitioner also asserted that representations had been made to the authorities, accompanied by a detailed report substantiating the allegations of cartelization and bid manipulation. However, the authorities proceeded with the allotment without addressing these concerns.
The Court, while deliberating on the matter, emphasized the need for ensuring fair competition in the liquor vending process. The bench observed, "The area of participation is large to ensure that it is not rigged. You need to challenge the constitutionality of the policy. Liquor is not very important for the public; it is not an essential commodity. The supply can wait."
The Court underscored that excise policies must be framed to prevent monopolistic practices and to safeguard public interest. It reiterated that the authorities must consider transparency in the tendering process and ensure compliance with the prescribed guidelines.
In view of the contentions and observations, the Court directed the petitioner to amend the plea to include a constitutional challenge to the excise policy. Further, the Court ordered a status quo to be maintained regarding the allotment process and scheduled the next hearing for April 3, 2025, for further deliberation on the vires of the policy.
Picture Source :